Microsoft has bucked most of the major software makers by agreeing to count multicore processors as a single chip in its product pricing schemes. Rightly recognizing an opportunity to boast, Microsoft today dedicated an entire press release to its pricing decision. The company will stick with its per processor model for products such as Windows Server and SQL Server regardless of how many cores Intel or AMD manage to pack into a chip. Microsoft's openness on this matter is commendable and in stark contrast to the likes of Oracle and IBM, which tend to shy away from admitting they will price software per core.

Anytime, however, that Microsoft comes off looking rosier than Oracle and IBM in a pricing issue, you know deeper motives than just customer satisfaction are at hand. Oracle, IBM, Veritas, BEA and a host of others have considerably more to lose than Microsoft from multicore chips in the short term. For starters, all of these vendors run their software on Unix and Linux servers, which are already running on dual-core chips from IBM, Sun Microsystems and HP. At the most basic level, these software makers would lose half of their revenue on a per processor pricing scheme if they gave in to the chip makers. (IBM is an especially interesting case as it has DB2 and WebSphere code to profit from and makes its own Power5 chip).

News source: The Register


iBook continued:

The 1.33 GHz PowerPC G4 iBook, weighing just 5.9 pounds, has a suggested retail price of $1,299 (US) and includes:
    • a crisp 14.1-inch (diagonal) active-matrix TFT display;
    • 256MB DDR SDRAM expandable to up to 1.25GB maximum memory;
    • a 60GB Ultra ATA hard drive;
    • AirPort Extreme 54 Mbps 802.11g wireless networking;
    • two USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400;
    • VGA video out, S-video and composite video out support;
    • Ethernet (10/100BASE-T); and
    • a slot-load Combo (DVD-ROM/CD-RW) drive.
The 1.33 GHz PowerPC G4 iBook, weighing just 5.9 pounds, has a suggested retail price of $1,499 (US) and includes:
    • a brilliant 14.1-inch (diagonal) active-matrix TFT display;
    • 256MB DDR SDRAM expandable to up to 1.25GB maximum memory;
    • a 60GB Ultra ATA hard drive;
    • AirPort Extreme 54 Mbps 802.11g wireless networking;
    • two USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400;
    • VGA video out, S-video and composite video out support;
    • Ethernet (10/100BASE-T); and
    • a slot-load SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW) drive.
xServe:
Pricing & Availability
The new Xserve RAID is available today through the Apple Storeฎ (www.apple.com) and through Apple Authorized Resellers. Xserve RAID comes in three standard configurations, or can be fully customized to meet specific customer requirements. Build-to-order options can include additional Apple Drive Modules and cache battery modules.

Xserve RAID with a suggested retail price of $5,999 (US) includes:
    • 1TB RAID 0 total available storage;
    • dual independent RAID controllers with 512MB cache per controller;
    • dual 2GB Fibre Channel SFP ports with 200MBps throughput per channel;
    • four 250GB ATA/100 Apple Drive Modules; and
    • 8MB on-drive cache.
Xserve RAID with a suggested retail price of $8,499 (US) includes:
    • 2.8TB RAID 0 total available storage;
    • dual independent RAID controllers with 512MB cache per controller;
    • dual 2GB Fibre Channel SFP ports with 200MBps throughput per channel;
    • seven 400GB ATA/100 Apple Drive Modules; and
    • 8MB on-drive cache.
Xserve RAID with a suggested retail price of $12,999 (US) includes:
    • 5.6TB RAID 0 total available storage;
    • dual independent RAID controllers with 512MB cache per controller;
    • dual 2GB Fibre Channel SFP ports with 200MBps throughput per channel;
    • fourteen 400GB ATA/100 Apple Drive Modules; and
    • 8MB on-drive cache.
PowerMac 1.8GHz single CPU:
Pricing & Availability
The new 1.8 GHz Power Mac G5 is available immediately through the Apple Storeฎ (www.apple.com), at Apple’s retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers in one standard configuration.
    • 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5;
    • 600 MHz front-side bus;
    • 256MB 400 MHz DDR SDRAM (4GB maximum);
    • 80GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm hard drive;
    • AGP 8X Pro graphics slot;
    • NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra with 64MB DDR SDRAM;
    • 3 PCI slots (64-bit, 33 MHz); and
    • 8x SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW).



There are 16 additional comments
Advertisement
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by xStainDx on 19 Oct 2004 - 17:27
Go Microsoft!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 19 Oct 2004 - 17:28
Typically I don't agree with what microsoft does or their business pratices but when it comes to this article all I can say is I fully agree with MS on this issue and I fully support this. Good job MS!
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by bangbang023 on 19 Oct 2004 - 20:55
This is what happens when there's competition. Simple as that.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 19 Oct 2004 - 20:58
Very nice.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by Axon on 19 Oct 2004 - 20:59
What to stick it to the man MS . Lets wait to see how the Fanboys of Neowin will boast this
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by denzilla on 19 Oct 2004 - 21:06
Its damn stupid to charge extra for a dual cpu machine anyway.
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #7 Posted by emel on 19 Oct 2004 - 21:37
QUOTE
Its damn stupid to charge extra for a dual cpu machine anyway


very true... even not counting dual core but all the intel dual xeon processors systems will count as two computers ( dont know if that already happens).
Quote this comment #7.1 Posted by rafter109 on 22 Oct 2004 - 04:11
I don't know if you realize this but if you look at a Windows XP OEM COA sticker, it says 1-2 CPU. Microsoft has not charged extra for dual processor machines and since dual core chips are really 1 cpu with 2 ALUs they still fall under the 1 CPU category, making it legitimate to install XP OEM on a 2-Dual Core CPU system. We didn't need Microsoft's outright approval because it is already stated on the COA. If MS wanted to deny this and make a lawsuit over it, it would be a quick defeat on their behalf. So the lesson of this story is that a Dual Core CPU is not technically 2 CPU's since there is more to a CPU than just an ALU.
(5 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #8 Posted by Shining Arcanine on 19 Oct 2004 - 21:51
The Register always has to make Microsoft sound like a bad guy. Can't they just accept that Microsoft cares about people? In some cases so much that they end up not caring about people (e.g. standards).
Quote this comment #8.1 Posted by markjensen on 19 Oct 2004 - 23:09
Microsoft is a corporation. The only part of "people" they care about is the wallet. Such is the nature of a corporation (which has responsibilities to their shareholders).
Quote this comment #8.2 Posted by SniperX on 19 Oct 2004 - 23:15
lol I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't misread it. You truly and absolutely believe that Microsoft's objective is to make smiley happy people? When they design that next piece of software, you believe their real thinking is "Now how can we make this product work better for Jo Public", as opposed to "Who are we aiming this product at, how much do they spend on average per year on software products, what are our profit margins, where do the stats show we would be best advertising, etc."

You, the customer, are just a demographic. Nothing more than that.
Quote this comment #8.3 Posted by Jugalator on 19 Oct 2004 - 23:27
Heh, yes, I agree The Register can be a bit too whiney at times, but it's equally silly to think MS "cares about people".

They're a company with a company's goals, not mother Teresa...
Quote this comment #8.4 Posted by shao on 20 Oct 2004 - 08:31
conisdering the fact that people like a good smooth software experience i don't think it's too much to claim ms care about people. Granted, not as much as the bottom line.
Quote this comment #8.5 Posted by threedaysdwn on 20 Oct 2004 - 11:41
QUOTE
lol I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't misread it. You truly and absolutely believe that Microsoft's objective is to make smiley happy people? When they design that next piece of software, you believe their real thinking is "Now how can we make this product work better for Jo Public", as opposed to "Who are we aiming this product at, how much do they spend on average per year on software products, what are our profit margins, where do the stats show we would be best advertising, etc."


Microsoft itself is a corporation, yes. It's objective is to maintain liquidity and profitability.

But the people at Microsoft are a different story. Many (or most) of them care a great deal about moving the industry forward for the benefit of all. I know for a fact that many of them think "Now how can we make this product better for our users" every day.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #9 Posted by figgy on 19 Oct 2004 - 23:26
Yay! Microsoft
This is very good news.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #10 Posted by kronix2 on 20 Oct 2004 - 13:41
Somehow I get the feeling that the INQ's stance on this is right. AMD and Intel would have leaned on Microsoft about this. Charging more would make Microsoft's OSes more expensive than they already are.

Do they want people to switch to Linux? No, which is why they're not charging extra for two cores.
[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.


Scroll to the Top
....
My Preferences
....
Communicating with server
Loading
Please Wait...
....
Loading
 X 
....